Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Or they're just proxying their connections (Score 1) 215

You're either very young or very naive, or a combination of both. If you're an adult, tough, I'd seek help because you're delusional. We're moving towards less freedom, more and more surveillance and a general understanding that we're better off censoring ourselves. Think how many things you can say today that would not only be perceived as "wrong" but actually cause you very serious trouble. One wrong word uttered and you can find yourself unemployable if not the target of the State's rough attention. We're not getting more access, we're getting more surveillance. It's going to get a lot worse.

Mainly in the USA. It started with GWB. Can you even take a domestic plane trip without being fingerprinted?

Comment: Re:ENOUGH with the politics! (Score 1) 1057

by lsatenstein (#49744669) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

Well, some people who earn less than $15 work in tech companies. That's a tech angle, right? /s

Yes, H1-B employees, who will rent a place with 4 bedrooms and split the rent into 8 parts (2 to a room).

The plus side of $15.00 min wage (In Montreal it is almost $14.00 today), is that these low income workers will have some discretionary money to spend on some goods and services. They will certainly not be living in the lap of luxury. They may even be able to save money to send a child to university.

Comment: Re:Mixed reaction (Score 1) 316

by lsatenstein (#49740163) Attached to: Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.

If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.

There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.

There certainly is a compelling argument for competition, as there is for proper regulation. So when one looks at the existing structure the question becomes what parts of it need to be applicable to new entrants providing the same service, i.e a ride for hire? Uber et. al. are merely a modification of the existing call a taxi on a phone model and thus should be subject to similar regulatory oversight. You contact a dispatcher, they send an independent contractor to pick you up and take you to a location for a fee. They may not have a medallion on their car and may or may not own the car but the end result is the same - a ride to a location in exchange for money.

Of course the existing companies are fighting tooth and nail becasue there is a lot of money at stake. In locations where medallions are scarce people can have hundred of thousands of dollars tied up in medallions, the medallion may be the most valuable thing the company or individual owns. Uber threatens that by putting cars on the road, thus threatening to overcome the artificially constrained supply of cabs and make owning a medallion necessary and thus lowering the value of existing medallions. So one can expect the medallion owners, as well as those who lend money to people to buy them, to fight back. Interestingly enough a medallion is one expensive item that is tailored to people with poor or no credit, since as one lender put it "If they don't pay all I have to do is pry the medallion off of the hood. I can then resell it but they can no longer drive so they'll do anything needed to make their payments."

Our taxi drivers are licensed by the province. Licensing includes training as a chauffeur, training in first-aid, adequate legal-training and health checks.
A taxi driver, as chauffeur gets a stiffer driving test and as well, a courteous course and more. Furthermore, the vehicles are open to spot inspections for cleanliness, and safety. A taxi driver is a job that on the easiest days, is a hard life. The hours are long, most of the time, a split shift. and no promotion capabilities to look forward to.

Comment: Re:Oh for fucks sake (Score 1) 611

by lsatenstein (#49712461) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

stop repeating this nonsense about technology not disrupting peoples lives. Yes, over the course of several decades the economy replaced those jobs. In the meantime millions were without work. There's a reason why the Luddites existed. That word has meaning beyond an insult. There was nearly 60 years of joblessness following the industrial revolution before other tech caught up. Google it. Read some history. Jeez.

I agree the solution isn't to go back on technology though. It's socialism. Plain 'ole socialism. When we don't need these people to work we don't just let them starve while we all take turns seeing who can make the 1% the happiest. And btw, I said _socialism_, not communism. And not a fascist dictatorship that occasionally publishes a pamphlet with something written by Karl Marx either...

YES! YES! YES! social-democratic style of government. Eventually we will have a 2 day work week, with 7 days revenue money to support living and entertainment. I for one would think that we all would become professional students or education givers.

Comment: Re:call me skeptical (Score 1) 190

if he ACTUALLY did any such thing the FAA would have issued a notice requiring aircraft WiFi

You obviously didn't read the search warrant.

First, it states that in previous interviews (in Feb, and I'll bet the FBI has audio records to support that), he had described connecting to the network using Ethernet connected to a "Seat Electronic Box" ("SEB") which is mounted under the seats. So, WiFi has nothing to do with it. In the same interview, he said he understood the legal ramifications and would not access airplane networks.

The warrant goes on to state that the FBI inspected the SEBs around the seat he occupied on his 4/15 Denver to Chicago leg, and found signs of damage and tampering.

That, along with his history and the tweet regarding being on the flight and suggesting he could tamper with the flight systems seems to me to be reasonable grounds for a warrant.

And, I hope he's prosecuted. Also in the Feb. interview, he admitted actually tampering with flight control systems. It's one thing to find a vulnerability and try to get it addressed. It's quite another to actually make use of that vulnerability during a flight, placing the public at risk.

How do you know he did the damages or unscrewed the cover. It could also be shoddy maintenance by the airline maintenance staff. Are there fingerprints to lift?

Comment: Re:If it works (Score 1) 164

by lsatenstein (#49712349) Attached to: Wind Turbines With No Blades

If it works as well as hoped this will save a lot of
big birds from an early demise.

Big fans rotating like heck are an astounding challenge to keep intact
and maintain. Not that these will be any easier but "Big Bird's" yellow
feathers will be safer (one can hope).

Presumeably, if the vibration is intense, it could be transferred to the ground. And the description of that shape is such that it may have a directional fog-horn effect, amplifying the vibration sound multifold times.
Still, I agree with you, its better than spinning blades and better than focused mirrors that kill birds that fly through the mirror's focus path.

Comment: Re:Pretty sure the heat death of the universe will (Score 1) 386

by lsatenstein (#49697425) Attached to: Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die

Just because a piece of software is old, doesn't mean it's suddenly doesn't do its intended function.

I'm not sure I'd be shocked by the effort that people make to keep old software running,. You mention PDP emulators, but how many people here use DOSBox on a regular basis to play old games.

Emulators are just one way do keep old software running of. The other way if the source is around is to keep updating the software for new platforms but avoiding too much feeping creaturism if you can. That's pretty much where I'm at with doing ircd work, keep the code updated for modern systems(with their own OS specific quirks) so it continues function.

It seems like people just want new and shiny software just for the sake of having new and shiny. New and shiny code however doesn't have X number of years of being used as production and all of the WTF bugs have long been squashed.

Meh.

I guess we will soon have to do that same thing to the desktop Linux, when Microsoft comes out with Windows 10.999

I for one see the Linux desktop as becoming a click-centric user interface. Gone is the terminal or console. and that click-centric interface with touch screens will obsolete the terminal. Sadly, Gnome's development is purely a payer development approach, and development does not respond to what end-users require.

I am hopefull that a new paradigm will arise where we will put together our own interface via a copy and past facility. Don't like a feature within ABC? Swap it out with one you do like.

Comment: Re:Swift is destroying Rust. (Score 1) 270

by lsatenstein (#49697333) Attached to: Swift Vs. Objective-C: Why the Future Favors Swift

I suppose it depends on what you want to do with it, and what you see Java's future as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oracle is.

I was studying programming in college when the hype for Java began. We were using C and C++. What was true then still holds true today, in that in C/C++ you can write operating systems and conventional programs, but in Java you are limited to conventional programs. Java has the theoretical interoperability feature between OSes and hardware platforms, but in practice there's a lot of customization to make programs actually do this, and if one has to write versions for several platforms, it's not a whole lot more burden to compile those and distribute binaries instead of Java runtimes.

  I second your opinion. When we had 1.44meg floppies, it was extremely important to have shared libraries. By now, 20 years later, we can have 8 terrabyte disks on our desktops, and 32gigs of ram. Yes, for shared system libraries (I/O, system calls, etc.) but statically bound libraries for the rest. If I upload a package and it is defective, I want to only remove that package, and retain the rest. I also want to isolate that package to certain directories. I suppose, that's what containers is about.

As for servers, I've always liked the mindset of putting as little as possible on the production server beyond what its job is. Hell, the idea of statically-compiling everything to allow one to eliminate libraries, let alone compilers on the production box, appeals in that if someone does break in there's a lot less they can do once on there. Java for server-side applications flies in the face of that, there are more general-purpose tools on the server rather than less.

I'm aware that I'm not in the majority for this stuff, and I didn't make programming my profession anyway so perhaps even I should be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems like in this speed to push features we've taken steps backward in real system security, and we're being bitten in the ass by it with ever increasing frequency. The very choice of programming language appears to be fundamental to that.

Comment: Re:Silly (Score 1) 276

by lsatenstein (#49674815) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What's the Future of Desktop Applications?

I can see a dicotomy (divergence) in tasks related to smart-phones and desktops.
Desktops will become flat convertible laptop-tablets. Therein you will be able to type or dictate a document. You will be able to watch movies, to save them, and to store all the pictures and junk your heart/cloud storage provides.

The smart phone will become the gps, the shopping guide, the government bitcoin interface, the remote control device for all your appliances and of course the telephone and videophone.

The desktop will have a personal database. Not so for the smart phone, but the smart phone may use your desktop as a server.

Comment: Re:No fault insurance, done (Score 1) 408

This is why "no fault" insurance was invented. Even with people, the liability in traffic accidents is often complex. Require no-fault insurance, you insurance is responsible for you, mine is responsible for me, and you are basically done - at least as far as car insurance is concerned.

What may be left is civil liability. If a manufacturer produces a genuinely faulty product, they can be sued in a completely separate action. The laws are already in place for that. The problem I see is the exact opposite of what you are worried about: People will sue, regardless of the quality of the product. Because bad things aren't supposed to happen, and if they do, someone must be to blame.

So someone without insurance t-bones my autonomous car, and I want compensated. The other driver is broke, so I sue my car manufacturer. Stupid, but entirely possible under US law. Loser pays would be the simplest solution: if you file a stupid lawsuit, you'll be paying the other side's legal costs. In the case of class action suits, the attorneys for the class should be liable for the loser's legal costs if they lose.

Before any company brings autonomous cars to market, the US tort system has got to be fixed.

I live in a No-Fault Canadian Province, with regards to vehicles. Its great, except when there are points to be given for traffic fault. And if you are the victim, you can't sue the culprit. Yes, you have medical care, so your insurance has to include income replacement. Our insurance has two providers, the province, and your own insurance. You must have your own insurance, while the government one is to cover you for medical.

Comment: Re:Contract: No! (Score 1) 353

It isn't vague at all, cerberusti is exactly correct and the AC is a maroon.

"Work for hire" means employee. It doesn't matter what you want it to mean; look up the legal precedents. Contractors are exactly what is _not_ "work for hire," it is business to business contracted work. Basically, the opposite of "work for hire."

There is no ambiguity; you have to have an express assignment of copyright for it to transfer. The contractor owns all their own IP. What the client gets is an implied unrestricted license. That gives them certain rights; you can't stop them from using what you made, because they paid you to make it, but that isn't the same as granting copyright. And a copyright assignment that is buried in the contract is actually not enforceable. You have to have a separate document that is only the copyright transfer. You have to have a signature that is just for the copyright, or else it is not expressly agreed to, it is just an unenforceable extra condition. The copyright assignment can require another document to have been signed in order to take effect, though. So that is how it is done, and that is why there is more than one thing to sign when you have a lawyer do this stuff for you.

The funny part, yeah, consulting contracts often do claim to state the ownership, but that isn't a valid place for it, and the contractor actually still owns that code. It doesn't come up very often, though, because if you try to use that to screw somebody over, you'll be engaging in an unfair business practice and that will preclude you from bringing an otherwise-valid lawsuit regarding the matter.

The easy way to remember it if you don't want to learn the details, the copyright designation is based on who the legal employer is, not who paid for the work. Paying for the work just means you have to be allowed to use the thing that was made for you. If you want to also own the copyright, you're buying that separately the same as if it was made for somebody else.

Just wiki "work for hire" before trying to get pedantic and "stepping in it."

But in the article, as an employee there is no way for him to end up with copyright. Even if it was done at home, since it is clearly related to his work, they own it.

My advice for him, if you're not ready to be a contractor, and you're not ready to start your own company, just write these ideas down in a notebook. You're not in the right situation to be writing speculative for-profit apps that take advantage of your employer's platform, because you're also writing those for your employer. If your company actually wants you to do this, they'll give you the documentation you need, but make sure you're really well trusted by management. If you're just a regular Jr developer, don't even ask. Just write your ideas down so that you can think about them more later, and learn about which still look good later.

We had a bank in Canada that outsourced it's IT department (operations and development). After a few years of rising costs, and security concerns, they wished to repatriate their IT department. Well, they did receive the data centre, and their hardware/network, but the contractor owned the code, and the bank was up SCHITTS creak (www.cbc.ca/schittscreek/). They were forced to retain software development with the contractor.

Comment: Re:$30 (Score 1) 515

$30 or so? I can easily drive to SF from LA on ¾ of a tank, which would be about 30 bucks. Why pay more than that? I get parking in SF might be terrible and costly, but depending on whom you are visiting driving is really the way to go.

Wouldn't the use of skype be better for a marketing call? I would travel if I had to meet some group. Or if I was the engineer who was asked to determine what is needed to improve an installed machine.

"Pascal is Pascal is Pascal is dog meat." -- M. Devine and P. Larson, Computer Science 340

Working...